If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Secretary of HHS is a pretty important position with regards to said legacy. If the Senate Republicans chose to thwart filling the position, something they have shown they have no problem doing, it would just be another means of sabotaging the project. I can understand why they want her gone so badly. It sure the hell isn't because of mismanagement. An efficient Affordable Care Act rollout is the last thing they want.

In the unlikely event that the Republican political elite class would actually have the temerity and the unmitigated balls to even question Barry's appointment to HHS, what would stop Barry from just waiting till the Senate goes in recess and then appoint his next ass-kisser as a recess-appointee?

He's done it before. What makes you think he wouldn't do it again, even though he's been spanked for it by the courts?

The difference between a brown noser and an ass kisser is depth perception.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

The Secretary of HHS is a pretty important position with regards to said legacy. If the Senate Republicans chose to thwart filling the position, something they have shown they have no problem doing, it would just be another means of sabotaging the project. I can understand why they want her gone so badly. It sure the hell isn't because of mismanagement. An efficient Affordable Care Act rollout is the last thing they want.

ROFLOL!!!!! No mismanagement? The rollout was a train wreck of epic proportions. The sites crashed after minimal activity (eight million hits is the average for Amazon in about an hour, while the feds were overwhelmed after a week). The contingency plans for sign up relied on the sites that crashed. There was no beta testing. The company hired to set it up had been fired for incompetence by the Canadian government when they couldn't administer their system. The only thing that the Republicans did to "sabotage" it was to try to repeal it before it came out, and to delay implementation, something that the Democrats now want to do because it's crashed and burned so badly. Stop with the DNC talking points and try to actually address the issues.

The Secretary of HHS is a pretty important position, period. So, instead of attempting to cut a deal with Senate Republicans, and find someone that they would not find objectionable or, in the event of a filibuster, try to do what he always does, which is let the media attack any resistance until the Republicans cave, he is going to sit by and leave a gibbering incompetent in the job? And exactly how many of Obama's appointees have been filibustered or otherwise defeated? One was filibustered, by Rand Paul, in order to draw attention to the NSA scandal. Most of Obama's appointments have sailed through confirmation hearings, even when they have demonstrated an appalling inability to make the case for their appointments. Chuck Hagel was so awful that people wondered why anyone should bother holding a hearing if he could get confirmed after his dismal performance. So, no, I don't think that the fear of a Republican filibuster is what is keeping him from sacking Sebelius.

And, let's get back to the OP, for a second. Either he was blindsided, or he wasn't. Since you are arguing that he's keeping Sebelius on because of fear of Republican reaction (which would be a first for this administration), then you appear to be accepting the argument that she allowed him to be blindsided. The implications of this are that, as I suggested, he was completely out of the loop for three and a half years while his signature program was in development. So, either nobody gave him progress reports or identified potential red flags along the way, nor did he solicit any, or he was repeatedly lied to by his subordinates. The former situation implies negligence and incompetence on a grand scale on Obama's part, while the latter means that his subordinates wasted hundreds of millions of dollars and lied to him. There are no other logical explanations. Doesn't that bother you at all that you are arguing for Obama's keeping on someone who failed miserably and wasted that much time and money?

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

I don't believe he could do so alone. A cloture vote requires 60, not 100.

So? Again, if Republicans filibuster, there's no reason not to wait until the senate is in recess, and do a recess appointment. The odds on a Republican filibuster against a moderate liberal are somewhere between slim and none. A filibuster is only likely if the nominee is a loon, which is entirely likely, given that whoever takes the job will have the responsiblity for implementing Obamacare. Nobody in their right mind would take that job, but fortunately, that's not a requirement for service in a Democratic administration.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

No he didn't. He gave a long speech.

Well, you have me there. There was no cloture vote involved, so technically, it wasn't a filibuster, it was just a long speech. However, that doesn't change any of the other arguments that I've made.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

He has enough already.

That is true. We have as yet to plumb the depth of his capacity for whining and self-pity when he fails to get his way.

ROFLOL!!!!! No mismanagement? The rollout was a train wreck of epic proportions. The sites crashed after minimal activity (eight million hits is the average for Amazon in about an hour, while the feds were overwhelmed after a week). The contingency plans for sign up relied on the sites that crashed. There was no beta testing. The company hired to set it up had been fired for incompetence by the Canadian government when they couldn't administer their system. The only thing that the Republicans did to "sabotage" it was to try to repeal it before it came out, and to delay implementation, something that the Democrats now want to do because it's crashed and burned so badly. Stop with the DNC talking points and try to actually address the issues.

The Secretary of HHS is a pretty important position, period. So, instead of attempting to cut a deal with Senate Republicans, and find someone that they would not find objectionable or, in the event of a filibuster, try to do what he always does, which is let the media attack any resistance until the Republicans cave, he is going to sit by and leave a gibbering incompetent in the job? And exactly how many of Obama's appointees have been filibustered or otherwise defeated? One was filibustered, by Rand Paul, in order to draw attention to the NSA scandal. Most of Obama's appointments have sailed through confirmation hearings, even when they have demonstrated an appalling inability to make the case for their appointments. Chuck Hagel was so awful that people wondered why anyone should bother holding a hearing if he could get confirmed after his dismal performance. So, no, I don't think that the fear of a Republican filibuster is what is keeping him from sacking Sebelius.

And, let's get back to the OP, for a second. Either he was blindsided, or he wasn't. Since you are arguing that he's keeping Sebelius on because of fear of Republican reaction (which would be a first for this administration), then you appear to be accepting the argument that she allowed him to be blindsided. The implications of this are that, as I suggested, he was completely out of the loop for three and a half years while his signature program was in development. So, either nobody gave him progress reports or identified potential red flags along the way, nor did he solicit any, or he was repeatedly lied to by his subordinates. The former situation implies negligence and incompetence on a grand scale on Obama's part, while the latter means that his subordinates wasted hundreds of millions of dollars and lied to him. There are no other logical explanations. Doesn't that bother you at all that you are arguing for Obama's keeping on someone who failed miserably and wasted that much time and money?

You misunderstand. It doesn't matter whether she has been incompetent or not (since when has that mattered in government?). The Republicans have zero interest in making the ACA work. This tells me the calls for her to be fired are bullshit and simply just another ploy for fuck with the law.

So? Again, if Republicans filibuster, there's no reason not to wait until the senate is in recess, and do a recess appointment.

When is the next recess? Come to think of it, I believe the Supreme Court is taking up the issue of what a recess is soon.

The odds on a Republican filibuster against a moderate liberal are somewhere between slim and none. A filibuster is only likely if the nominee is a loon, which is entirely likely, given that whoever takes the job will have the responsiblity for implementing Obamacare. Nobody in their right mind would take that job, but fortunately, that's not a requirement for service in a Democratic administration.

Tautology.

Well, you have me there. There was no cloture vote involved, so technically, it wasn't a filibuster, it was just a long speech. However, that doesn't change any of the other arguments that I've made.

Yea. Obama sucks the ACA sucks blah blah blah.

That is true. We have as yet to plumb the depth of his capacity for whining and self-pity when he fails to get his way.

You misunderstand. It doesn't matter whether she has been incompetent or not (since when has that mattered in government?). The Republicans have zero interest in making the ACA work. This tells me the calls for her to be fired are bullshit and simply just another ploy for fuck with the law.

When is the next recess? Come to think of it, I believe the Supreme Court is taking up the issue of what a recess is soon.

Tautology.

Yea. Obama sucks the ACA sucks blah blah blah.

Yea. I heard you the first 5000 times.

Tell me the good points of Obamacare and why you think it will work from what you have learned in the last two months?

Come on Dolby, sell it to me!

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.